Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is There a Need for Greater Emphasis on Clinical Facial Analysis than Cephalometrics & 3D Software Solutions in the Diagnosis and Treatment Planning of Patients with Dentofacial Deformities?

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study is designed to evaluate the need for a greater emphasis on clinical facial analysis over cephalometrics in the diagnosis and treatment planning of patients with dentofacial deformities.

Materials and Method

A predetermined questionnaire study was designed to get the thought process of surgeons and consultants involved in orthognathic surgery from various parts of southern India. Two hundred and twenty-eight maxillofacial consultants were involved in the survey. Demographic information, type of professional practice, preferred tool in the diagnosis & treatment planning: Cephalometrics or 3D software solutions and flaw in the available tools were evaluated.

Results

The results of this study revealed that only 36.8% of the consultants felt that cephalometrics is the prime tool and 73.3% of the consultants felt that 3D software solutions were superior to cephalometrics in the diagnosis and treatment planning of patients with dentofacial deformities. However, 46% of the consultants preferred facial analysis as the prime tool with cephalometrics as an adjunct. Pertaining to the clinical outcome of their treated cases of dentofacial deformities, 61.8% of the consultants felt the need to address additional cosmetic issues following an orthognathic procedure. It was observed that 92.1% of the participants felt the need for greater emphasis on clinical facial analysis than cephalometrics.

Conclusion

Human faces should always be evaluated taking into consideration the various esthetic units of the face. Performing corrective jaw surgery merely based on cephalometric values inevitably fails to address the various other innate imbalances of the face. Hence, cephalometric data should only be considered as an adjunct to clinical judgment in the diagnosis and treatment planning of dentofacial deformities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baum AT (1951) A cephalometric evaluation of the normal skeletal and dental pattern of children with excellent occlusion. Angle Orthod 21:96–103

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Steiner CC (1960) The use of cephalometry as an aid in planning and assessing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 46:721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Nanda R, Nanda RS (1969) Cephalometric study of the dentofacial complex of north Indians. Angle Orthod 39:22–28

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Trivedi K, Singh S, Shivamurthy DM, Doshi J, Shyagali T, Patel B (2010) Analysis of cephalometrics for orthognathic surgery: determination of norms applicable to Rajasthani population. Natl J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1(2):102–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Marianetti TM et al (2016) Numbers of beauty: an innovative aesthetic analysis for orthognathic surgery treatment planning. Bio Med Res Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6156919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Naini FB, Akram S, Kepinska J, Garagiola U, McDonald F, Wertheim D (2017) Validation of a new three-dimensional imaging system using comparative craniofacial anthropometry. Maxillofac Plast Recon Surg 39:23–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Yamada T, Mori Y, Katsuhiro M, Katsuaki M, Tsukamoto Y (2002) Threedimensional analysis of facial morphology in normal Japanese children as control data for cleft surgery. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 39(517–526):6

    Google Scholar 

  8. Aldridge K, Boyadjiev SA, Capone GT, DeLeon VB, Richtsmeier JT (2005) Precision and error of three-dimensional phenotypic measures acquired from 3dMD photogrammetric images. Am J Med Genet 138A:247–253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hammoudeh JA, Howell LK, Boutros S, Scott MA, Urata MM (2015) Current status of surgical planning for orthognathic surgery: traditional methods versus 3D surgical planning. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 3:e307

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Xia JJ, Shevchenko L, Gateno J, Teichgraeber JF, Taylor TD, Lasky RE, English JD, Kau CH, McGrory KR (2011) Outcome study of computer-aided surgical simulation in the treatment of patients with craniomaxillofacial deformities. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:2014–2024

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Centenero SAH, Hernandez-Alfaro F (2014) 3D planning in orthognathic surgery: CAD/CAM surgical splints and prediction of the soft and hard tissues results—our experience in 16 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 40:162–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Queiroz TP, Gulinelli JL, Souza FA, Zanetti LSS, Filho MO, Garcia IR Jr et al (2010) Assessment of the accuracy of cephalometric prediction tracings in patients subjected to orthognathic surgery in the mandible. Dental Press J Orthod 15(4):117–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Vig KD, Ellis E 3rd (1990) Diagnosis and treatment planning for the surgical-orthodontic patient. Dent Clin North Am 34(2):361–368

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kalaiselvi A, Kishore KS (2019) A review on soft tissue prediction techniques in orthodontics and orthognathic surgery-evolution of three dimensional techniques. Ind J Pub Health Res Develop 10(12):2447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ghoddousi H, Edler R, Haers P, Wertheim D, Greenhill D (2007) Comparison of three methods of facial measurement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 36:250–258

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chandra HJ, Ravi MS, Sharma SM, Prasad BR (2012) Standards of facial esthetics: an anthropometric study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 11(4):384–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Self-funded.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Saveetha Dental College & Hospital, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, India

    Uday Kiran Uppada & K. P. Senthilnathan

  2. The Taulin’s Clinic, Bengaluru, India

    David P. Tauro

Authors
  1. Uday Kiran Uppada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David P. Tauro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. P. Senthilnathan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

UKU, DPT, KPS contributed to the design of the study, data collection, datra analysis and drafting of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Uday Kiran Uppada.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical Approval

Institutional ethical clearance obtained.

Consent to Participate

Patient consent taken.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Uppada, U.K., Tauro, D.P. & Senthilnathan, K.P. Is There a Need for Greater Emphasis on Clinical Facial Analysis than Cephalometrics & 3D Software Solutions in the Diagnosis and Treatment Planning of Patients with Dentofacial Deformities?. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 22, 820–826 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-023-02022-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-023-02022-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation